• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Healthy Debate: National Childcare Program

Toronto is an expensive place to live

The economy sucked in New Brunswick, it's pretty good in Arizona. I don't like Arizona very much - I miss my family, and haven't been home for about 8 years. It is my choice to live here - short of postings, most people choose where they live. I weigh all the pros, all the cons, and decide whats best for my wife and daughter, overall.
 
muskrat89 said:
It is my choice to live here - short of postings, most people choose where they live. I weigh all the pros, all the cons, and decide whats best for my wife and daughter, overall.

I completely agree. But if a statistically significant number of parents have to leave the large urban centres (or sub-urban 'centres') in order to provide good childcare to their children, than IMHO, we need to intervene. No-one is suggesting (at least not me) that we should pay for childcare for someone making 80k a year that also lives in the British Properties (a very rich area of West Vancouver, for you Easterners). Clearly, if you choose to live in the richest area of an urban centre, you have the choice to move to a less expensive area within your general area (in this example, they could move to North Vancouver).

If someone lives in a very affluent   area, it's fair to expect someone to move to a less expensive area within their area, but I don't feel they should have to move to a different part of the country (or another country) just so they can provide the BASICS for their children.
 
muskrat89 said:
The economy sucked in New Brunswick, it's pretty good in Arizona. I don't like Arizona very much - I miss my family, and haven't been home for about 8 years. It is my choice to live here - short of postings, most people choose where they live. I weigh all the pros, all the cons, and decide whats best for my wife and daughter, overall.

I'm glad your choice has benefited your family.
I choose to live in Toronto as it has good medical services for my daughter, and my employment opportunities are better here. Other similar centers aren't much cheaper and there are costs other then financial to move as well. Like leaving all social/family support here, as you mentioned. In our case, that's just not worth leaving yet.

Simple answers do not fit complex issues easily. We all do our best with our situations, and sometimes we need different solutions.
 
Right, and I agree with points you've both made. I just don't feel that I should reap the benefits of my "pros", and expect the Government to compensate me for the "cons", based on choices I've made
 
x-grunt said:
I take real exception to the crack about "the latest toys", that is a pure a**hole comment.

My sit:
2 bdrm apt in Toronto.
no car - we walk where we can, transit when we have to.
no cable TV
older computer on dial up
1 grown son who's moved away.
1 two year old daughter with CP
Wife with job. (I had the higher pay, but it was contract and undependable as a result.)
I've been home for two years with my daughter, and glad to do it.
Our savings have slowly been eaten up buy costs of living above what my wife can earn.
So, I'm going back to work because as much as my girl deserves my love and attn, she also deserves decent food and shelter to go with it. To go back to work is costing me another $1200/mo. in daycare. I had to wait a year to get her in, and even that was very fast due to her special needs.

See any "toys" here? Get over your stupid western prejudices. Toronto is an expensive place to live and most of us are not an "uppie" whatever that is, nor are we rich. You have an opinion? Let's hear it, but keep the idiotic cracks to yourself.

Ex-Grunt I apologize plse don't take it personally, of crse I was speaking in generalities and I realize that there are those in unfortunate circumstances, such as your own, who would need the help. However it's usually people like yourself that don't get the help. Agree? Just my "western" prejudice and "opinion" at the population that keeps voting in the current government. Having said that I am originally from the "East" (further east than TO) and in my CF career I have numerous postings including Ont, and I received no help, had no extras, no toys, no job for my wife, no pay raise etc. etc. etc. Long and short of it: we had 'em and we had to raise 'em. I hope things work out for you.
 
Even with cases like Ex Grunt, I still would make the argument that reducing the tax burden and leaving more money in his and his wifes pockets would give him more choices. Since there are a lot of people in his situation (no matter where they live), there will be many people who see the need and offer some sort of service to cater to it. In this circumstance, Ex Grunt and anyone else who wants or needs daycare will find many different offerings which they can choose from.

Under the "One Big Plan", small providers will be forced out of the market, and Ex Grunt may discover that the daycare he can get is constrained by all kinds of factors he may not want of apprieciate. A simple example would be these government centres would most likely be concentrated in Liberal Ridings as a means of vote getting/buying. The staffing and hours would be controlled by public service unions, which may make using these centres very inflexible, especially if you are using transit. Finally, just what would the children be doing there all day? I can certainly picture a lot of "indoctrination" hidden in the stories and activities. As well, this provides a 1984 style means of monitoring the activities of the parents (I'm sorry to hear your father smokes Johnny. Tell me children, does anyone else have a mommy or daddy who smokes?).

Over the top? Maybe. Why take the chance? Contact your MP or Dryden directly and tell them you do not want the 5 billion dollar boondoggle to go ahead.
 
a_majoor said:
Even with cases like Ex Grunt, I still would make the argument that reducing the tax burden and leaving more money in his and his wifes pockets would give him more choices. Since there are a lot of people in his situation (no matter where they live), there will be many people who see the need and offer some sort of service to cater to it. In this circumstance, Ex Grunt and anyone else who wants or needs daycare will find many different offerings which they can choose from.

Under the "One Big Plan", small providers will be forced out of the market, and Ex Grunt may discover that the daycare he can get is constrained by all kinds of factors he may not want of apprieciate. A simple example would be these government centres would most likely be concentrated in Liberal Ridings as a means of vote getting/buying. The staffing and hours would be controlled by public service unions, which may make using these centres very inflexible, especially if you are using transit. Finally, just what would the children be doing there all day? I can certainly picture a lot of "indoctrination" hidden in the stories and activities. As well, this provides a 1984 style means of monitoring the activities of the parents (I'm sorry to hear your father smokes Johnny. Tell me children, does anyone else have a mommy or daddy who smokes?).

Over the top? Maybe. Why take the chance? Contact your MP or Dryden directly and tell them you do not want the 5 billion dollar boondoggle to go ahead.

While I think most of your points border on paranoia, the stance that Government-delivered child-care is a bad idea is valid...but, IMHO, for different reasons.

The biggest is cost-effectiveness, or lack there-of. Government-delivered child-care would certainly involve unionized PSAC employees. They don't come cheap.

Another issue for me is the 'cost-benefit' model. We would end up pumping way more money into this program than is actually required to deliver good child-care. The extraordinary cost would diminish the benefits of the child-care provided.

I say use the massive EI Surplus (it's BILLIONS of dollars, and rising) to create a program where parents are paid to stay home and raise their kids to school-age. Then they are off the 'pogey'. Or, use that same surplus (yes, I know, it's not that easy to do), and provide tax breaks that equate or come close to equating the monthly cost of child-care.

 
The â Å“tripeâ ? (as one poster mentioned but since disappeared) they are teaching is sharing and how to get along with others. Studies have shown that children in childcare acclimatize better in kindergarten then those that do not, so there are benefits. However, every family situation is unique. My children were in daycare and they turned out fine. Both are in university, and I'm sure they'll visit me in the home and wipe the oatmeal from my chin. I feel that it's the time you spend with your kids that counts, as opposed to the time you do not.

    As for the â Å“Stateâ ? raising our kids, I think that's the ultimate conservatives boogieman. Just has the irrational fear of liberal brainwashing/ indoctrination that is going to occur in the State run baby centres. Brings up images of Chinese baby's, lined up by the hundreds in their cribs in the nursuaries. Anyone who seriously thinks that the Fed gov't will get directly involved in the Daycare business is sorely mistaken. First, it is a provincial responsibility, and secondly what the goal of the program (my speculation) is to make daycare more accessible to those that require it, not build and run the system. As for the Union card, in Manitoba, the vast majority of non-profit centres are not unionized nor do I expect them to be in the future. Hours are dictated by parenal needs.

On the economic side for a couple a taxbreak will put more income in a their pocket, but not increase a their gross income. Two incomes would do that. And that is sometimes that is what those on the lower end of the scale require. And busnisess will not complain about the increse in the labour pool, and the econmoy can only grow with increased consumtion.
 
Just checked with my Girlfriend.   As a single mother, she pays $37 a month for Daycare for her son.   This is determined by a the income she brings in at her job.

Obviously, the people who really need it are, for the most part, getting the "safety net".   Do we really need to ensure that everyone has access to what only some really do need by throwing 5 billion into a new system?
 
Not everyone. There has to be a means test for subsidy. However, not all provinces have the same sytem. In Qubec it used to be $5.00/day. It is just a hodge podge depending what province your in.

The $5 Billion does sound like a lot, and there is just no way I could justify that expense unless its spead over 5-10 years and of course the nature the program takes, such as subsidys.
 
RCA said:
Not everyone.

And this is why I said "for the most part".  Obviously, no system is perfect.  Obviously, you've pointed out two key factors:

1)  A more coherent, national apporoach has to be taken.

2)  An appropriate means test needs to be inplace for any safety net.  Is the person genuinely not earning enough to afford proper care for the child, or are there other circumstances which may contribute to the problem (too much taxes limit what should be a decent income, poor management of household economics, person is a complete idiot).  This is why I don't believe in "Universal" daycare - it is not an entitlement (it's your kid, not mine) and not everyone needs access to the public pocket.
 
Infanteer said:
And this is why I said "for the most part".   Obviously, no system is perfect.   Obviously, you've pointed out two key factors:

1)   A more coherent, national apporoach has to be taken.

2)   An appropriate means test needs to be inplace for any safety net.   Is the person genuinely not earning enough to afford proper care for the child, or are there other circumstances which may contribute to the problem (too much taxes limit what should be a decent income, poor management of household economics, person is a complete idiot).   This is why I don't believe in "Universal" daycare - it is not an entitlement (it's your kid, not mine) and not everyone needs access to the public pocket.

exactly. Although I am in support of some kind of new system, and feel the lack of affordable child-care should be something the Federal Government should tackle, I have the same worries about abuse. Too many people abuse the current systems we have, whether that be EI, Welfare, etc, that I don't see how one could expect different with childcare. Especially when there is no requirement on the part of the parent other than to provide care for their child.
 
Infanteer said:
Just checked with my Girlfriend.   As a single mother, she pays $37 a month for Daycare for her son.   This is determined by a the income she brings in at her job.

Obviously, the people who really need it are, for the most part, getting the "safety net"...

Interesting - daycare for my son was approx $300 a month before I went to Kabul, and then while I was away he had a nanny (cost somewhere between $1500 and 1700 a month - sorry, I forget exactly).
 
Here is a very good counterargument to the $5 billion dollar boondoggle:

Bush's Supply-Side Budget
Its defining aspect is that it is pro-growth.

The mainstream media has already wasted reams of newspaper, not to mention thousands of trees, in trying to decide whether or not President Bush's budget proposal is a deficit-reducer. Once again, they've missed the key point: The central defining aspect of Bush's budget submission is that it is pro-growth.

I asked Josh Bolten, director of the Office of Management and Budget, if the president's proposal to make the 2003 tax cuts permanent was in the budget. He answered yes. This is crucial to economic growth and deficit reduction. More, it signals that Bush is not backing off. It sends an important message to Sen. Connie Mack's tax-reform commission that a 15 percent tax rate on capital gains and dividends, along with abolishing the estate tax, is a high presidential priority.

Beyond this important threshold, Bush deserves credit for his toughest effort thus far to restrain federal spending. Overall discretionary spending is aimed at slightly less than the projected inflation rate. Excluding homeland security and defense, discretionary spending actually falls in inflation-adjusted terms. There are also some tentative efforts in the budget to reduce the growth rate of entitlement spending, especially Medicaid. And the administration is finally waging war on farm-sector welfare queens.

Overall federal spending as a share of GDP is projected to trend around 19.5 percent. This is a historically low spending share of the economy. If maintained, more resources will stay in private hands to foster entrepreneurship, new business creation, jobs, and wealth.

The deficit, meanwhile, is projected to fall to about 1.3 percent of GDP from the current 3.5 percent over the next 5 years. This is well below European and Japanese deficits. Should the U.S. economy grow faster than the 3.3 percent yearly estimate in the OMB baseline, then the budget will move into balance in just half a decade.

More important, at lower tax rates, Treasury coffers are rapidly filling up with rising tax collections. The Laffer Curve is alive and well. Over the past twelve months individual income-tax collections have increased by 15 percent. Non-withheld individual collections, which include stock market-generated capital gains and dividends, have increased 14 percent.

This didn't happen on its own. In June 2003 the president signed tax-reform legislation that immediately lowered the top personal tax rate to 35 percent. Investment tax cuts were also part of that reform. The economy's recovery rate subsequently doubled from the new dose of supply-side incentives.

Josh Bolten, sounding a lot like a supply-sider these days, is well aware of these developments. He notes that upper-income taxpayers are paying more of the total share of tax collections even while their marginal rate has been reduced. Hence, Bush's first-term tax reform has led to even greater productivity, along with increased investment incentives and reduced tax evasion. Another supply-side policy experiment has proven successful.

Deficit teeth-gnashing will go on forever. But there is no evidence that a temporary deficit increase to finance recovery investment has had any ill effect on the economy. Well-run businesses sometimes borrow to invest in future expansion. So must the federal government. The latest government statistics show that private-sector GDP growth is rising at better than 5 percent, while core inflation is a tame 1.5 percent. At 5.2 percent unemployment, the economy is moving steadily towards full utilization of the available workforce.

Rubinomics â ” the idea of Clinton's former Treasury secretary that deficits always cause bond rates to rise â ” is wrong once again. Treasury bond yields are only slightly higher than 4 percent, suggesting a 1950's scenario rather than a pessimistic future disaster.

The Bush administration has set down principled markers on economic and budget policy â ” namely that the surest path to deficit reduction is federal budget restraint and tax-cut-spurred economic growth. As the prosperity pie grows larger and incomes rise, revenues fill in the deficit gap while spending is slowed. It's a growth solution, not an austerity one.

Fortunately, Bush will have two tough congressional enforcers to implement his plan. Both Senate Budget chair Judd Gregg and House chair Jim Nussle are spending hawks. Look for them to drive tough-minded reconciliation instructions that will force weak-kneed appropriators to stay on track.

Of course, all of this is a legacy of Reaganomics. The great president would have been 94 last Sunday. While his soul rests in heavenly peace, his vision and ideals are alive and well right here on earth.

President George W. Bush deserves much credit for maintaining and expanding on the Reagan vision. Whether spreading freedom and democracy abroad, or ownership policies for more economic freedom at home, Bush continues to stoke the fires of liberty.

â ” Larry Kudlow, NRO's Economics Editor, is host with Jim Cramer of CNBC's Kudlow & Cramer and author of the daily web blog, Kudlow's Money Politic$.

 
http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200502091401.asp

If Canada were to replicate these economic growth and unemployment statistics, many of the arguments for the "need" for national day car would fall by the wayside. Parents would have more money and more choices available for raising their children, including single income families.
 
a_majoor said:
Here is a very good counterargument to the $5 billion dollar boondoggle:

If Canada were to replicate these economic growth and unemployment statistics, many of the arguments for the "need" for national day car would fall by the wayside. Parents would have more money and more choices available for raising their children, including single income families.
Our governments get elected on the promise of new programs not the promise of good governance.  If Canadians actually cared more about having a sanely run government instead of more entitlements and hand-holding by the state, we might go somewhere.  In the case of day care, the simple, most effective solution is to reduce the tax burden on individuals, the payroll taxes on employers and use the EI fund to extend better parental benefits - but that would not be a new program to address the problem - it would be an admission that all along, Liberal fiscal policies have been anti-family.  And the likelyhood of that happening - well, what we need is someone with a sane program and the guts to implement it - Mike Harris, anyone?
 
Here's a novel idea that worked over 30 years ago. Why don't parents look after their own kids. Therefore we wouldn't need a daycare system except for single parents. The cost of living would even itself out eventually as the demand for the overpriced non necessities falls. The only reason that retailers charge 500% profit on goods is because a bunch of dumb overpaid schmucks will pay it.
My wife and I managed to raise our daughter on one salary. We lived without the perks but my kid pays me back everyday in her actions. Now that she's getting older the money is freeing up and my wife and I can enjoy some perks. And still on one income.
Also if this nation went back to single income families unemployment would be nil (=no welfare), kids would be more respectful and appreciative, more marriages would succeed and there would be less suburbanites and urbanites driving huge king cab pick ups.
Then maybe we could fund our military and help contribute in the international theatre.
 
Good day all,

I'm currently writing a paper on whether or not Canada should implement a national childcare program. I searched it up on here but the thread is 6 years old ( http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/26257.75.html ) and there weren't a whole lot of proponents of childcare to challenge the opponents anyway.

I'd like to kick this off again, 1. to help me bomb-proof or find fallacies in my point of view and 2. to hear some of the opposition's evidence, or rebuttals of my evidence.

So here are two out of the three main arguments of my thesis (again, the thesis is that Canada should adopt a national childcare program). The paper isn't written yet, I am just gathering data. These are just summaries of the arguments:

1. Natural selection. Couldn't find any data on Canada, but in the US the fertility rate of a woman receiving social assistance is 3x that of a woman not receiving social assistance.1 Canada is at least similar. I don't think it's a secret that people receiving welfare have more kids than families that have two working parents anyway. The easiest indicator of intelligence is also wealth, with each point increase in IQ scores was associated with $202 to $616 more income per year.2

What this means is that due to the costs of childcare for a wealthy person (who doesn't get it subsidized), intelligent people are having less kids, but generally unintelligent people are having more children because it doesn't restrict their lifestyle nearly as much (indeed, some would argue they benefit from having kids).

I don't think I need to elaborate any further into what natural selection will lead to...

2. It would actually end up being cheaper for taxpayers. I will use a single-parent in Newfoundland as an example.

Currently, the poverty line for a SP with one child is 20,209, and they would receive 14,670 in social assistance3, plus they can get childcare subsidized. Ignoring completely the "economies of scale" factor if there was a national childcare program, the median costs for centre-based childcare in Newfoundland is $4560/year(18mos - 36mos) and $4320(3yrs - 5 yrs).4 If childcare was provided, social assistance could be dramatically cut, and most likely a single parent is going to actively seek full-time employment. At $10/hr (min wage in Newfoundland), 40 hrs/week, that is an income of $20,800.

Now you have taken a single parent and their child above the poverty line at a cost of ~$4500 a year, as opposed to paying $14,670+ and they both remain below the poverty line.


1. http://itsteatime.net/blogs/blog4.php/2009/10/01/birth-rates-by-income
2. http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/intlwlth.htm
3. http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/fs_ncwpl01.htm
4. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/daycare/daycarecosts.html

Look forward to hearing your responses.
 
One issue is the wage descrepienceis.  In Alberta my co-workers are paying anywhere from $350-900/month for just afterschool care if you can find a space...but wages for the workers there are $11/hour.  It's more cost effective to a parent stay at home with two kids than it is to have them working unless they are making significant wages..case in point the boss has a nanny fulltime with two kids for $100 more a month than childcare is for school days only.

In addition to the cost of enrollement programs are decreasing due to increased certification needs.  Several local daycares are facing closure because the province has now mandated a $6000 course needed in order to supervise other workers yet the employee only makes roughly ~24,000 a year.  If you can make more at Tim Hortons or MacDonalds by a couple of bucks an hour + don't have to have a certificate = no workers in the childcare sector.

Perhaps the solution is instead of direct subsidization is tax-splitting returns for all parents with kids under X years of age.  That changes a $80,000 wage earner into two $40,000 wages but may better balence out gender employment and wage descrepencies.

Some more fodder to think on.
 
Look at the stats that look at educational success of children who attended daycare vs those that didn't.
Then correlate this to differential in projected income over lifetime. This would set up the argument that it would be an investment in the future.
 
cupper said:
Look at the stats that look at educational success of children who attended daycare vs those that didn't.
Then correlate this to differential in projected income over lifetime. This would set up the argument that it would be an investment in the future.

Do they exist?
Because that sounds like bullshit to me, nothing beats a stay at home parent.
 
Back
Top